Do You Believe That There's Life On Other Planets?

[SkyWriting]

There are no specific laws for most of the complexity in the universe, like planets, stars, and galaxies. They are emergent from general fundamental laws given certain conditions. Life is the same.

Yes, there are very specific laws for why every structure in the cosmos exists. Why every star in in it's the exact location, why every planet remains in it's orbit. Why stars exist, why they work the way they do. All time tested laws that allow for the prediction of every particle in the cosmos. Even unknown particles.

The opposite of the search for life which has zero rules to follow.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's not really made up when there's genetics and biology to support the idea.

Yes, those are the properties we've chosen to use because we see similarities deeper than in the past.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, those are the properties we've chosen to use because we see similarities deeper than in the past.

Images aren't really applicable to what you or I was saying since we know how lightning is generated, ancient people did not, hence why they claimed there was a god on a mountain throwing down lightning bolts.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, that's what I meant. We invent ways to draw similarities between things.

Not the same in the slightest. The picture on the left is something that is food and is edible, and the other is a combination of miniature bits of plastic.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The thing is that the Cosmological Principle, thus far, appears to still be holding up with measurements of our observable universe, so I guess the observable universe is what you mean by 'some part of the universe'(?)

That's not what I said.

There's no point in denying the existence of Earth's-life, so there's no need for the condition: 'if life was possible but did not occur'. In fact, the condition is nonsensical because there's also no intelligence to contemplate: 'was possible', or even state such an Anthropic principle in the first place!

See above.

What's 'possible' in some other 'bubble' universe, will remain beyond our causal range and requires the intelligence from our observable one, to contemplate. In which case: who cares about 'what's possible' beyond our Cosmological Horizon, when responses to such questions will forever remain within the realm of pure belief, (or pure imagination)?

See above.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's not an easy task. Why would life develop? Why would it continue? Why would animals propagate? Why would they diversify? What's the cause of life?

When you have a mummy element and a daddy element, and they attract each other very much, they share their electrons and form a compound. In the right conditions, some compounds can interact with each other to form more complex compounds. These interactions can become very complex and even lead to self-maintaining systems we call life.

Once you have populations of replicators that replicate with heritable variation in a natural environment, diversification, for those that avoid extinction, is pretty much inevitable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, there are very specific laws for why every structure in the cosmos exists. Why every star in in it's the exact location, why every planet remains in it's orbit. Why stars exist, why they work the way they do. All time tested laws that allow for the prediction of every particle in the cosmos. Even unknown particles.

Those aren't laws specific to celestial bodies, they're applications of the laws of General Relativity and quantum mechanics - which apply to everything in the universe.

 

[SelfSim]

The self-selection principle (Weak Anthropic Principle) is the simple answer to that - if intelligent observers are possible in some part of a universe, and there are intelligent observers in that universe, they will find themselves in that part of the universe that can support the development of intelligent observers. If life was possible but did not occur, there would be nobody to make such observations.

The thing is that the Cosmological Principle, thus far, appears to still be holding up with measurements of our observable universe, so I guess the observable universe is what you mean by 'some part of the universe'(?)

That's not what I said.

.. and my response was a question asking for your clarification of your assumed context of your answer of the weak Anthropic Principle. The context is all important in order for a proposed answer to make sense.

I would think it was a reasonable (even obvious) question to ask you and then a reasonable set of logical consequences for us to test out the applicability of your proposed answer, no?

 

[SkyWriting]

Those aren't laws specific to celestial bodies, they're applications of the laws of General Relativity and quantum mechanics - which apply to everything in the universe.

Which ones are the "Laws of Life" again? Can you produce one?

At a minimum, one single law?

 

[SkyWriting]

When you have a mummy element and a daddy element, and they attract each other very much, they share their electrons and form a compound. In the right conditions, some compounds can interact with each other to form more complex compounds. These interactions can become very complex and even lead to self-maintaining systems we call life.

Once you have populations of replicators that replicate with heritable variation in a natural environment, diversification, for those that avoid extinction, is pretty much inevitable.

The law of mummy element and daddy element. = LIFE

Citation, please?

 

[SelfSim]

Which ones are the "Laws of Life" again? Can you produce one?

At a minimum, one single law?

Not a law .. but certainly a testable hypothesis:
Abiogenesis - Hot Springs Hypothesis.

(There's not a lot of point in demanding a scientific law which hasn't yet been devised).

 

[SkyWriting]

Not a law .. but certainly a testable hypothesis:
Abiogenesis - Hot Springs Hypothesis.

(There's not a lot of point in demanding a scientific law which hasn't yet been devised).

There is not a lot of point thinking science is a valid field if we can't figure out some guesses as to why life exists.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, that's what I meant. We invent ways to draw similarities between things.

I bet I can give a list of differences between those two objects that's much longer than any list of similarities you can provide.

 

[SelfSim]

There is not a lot of point thinking science is a valid field if we can't figure out some guesses as to why life exists.

What do think an hypothesis is?

 

[SkyWriting]

I bet I can give a list of differences between those two objects that's much longer than any list of similarities you can provide.

Based on visual information differences I imagine.

 

[SkyWriting]

What do think an hypothesis is?

I will accept any hypothesis as a start. What do you have?
Why does life exist instead of non-living material?
Why doesn't all life just give up and die? Wouldn't that be easier?
Isn't that what all the chemicals want to do? Just relax?

 

[Shemjaza]

I will accept any hypothesis as a start. What do you have?
Why does life exist instead of non-living material?
Why doesn't all life just give up and die? Wouldn't that be easier?
Isn't that what all the chemicals want to do? Just relax?

Life creates more life... that's kind of its thing.

It's a very active class of chemical that uses energy to turn less reactive material into more life.

 

[SelfSim]

I will accept any hypothesis as a start. What do you have?

Do you even read other people's responses to your posts? What do you think I linked to in post#291?

Why does life exist instead of non-living material?
Why doesn't all life just give up and die? Wouldn't that be easier?
Isn't that what all the chemicals want to do? Just relax?

Simply inane, unthinking rhetorical questions ..

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Which ones are the "Laws of Life" again? Can you produce one?

At a minimum, one single law?

As I already explained, complexity is emergent from interactions involving fundamental laws. It is often possible to describe the behaviour of emergent systems using different sets of 'coarse-grained' laws; e.g. the gas laws, fluid mechanics, etc. There are such laws governing various aspects of life, e.g. evolution, growth, population dynamics, etc., but I can't think of any specific to the beginnings of life - the first replicators would have been relatively simple chemical structures, governed by the laws of chemistry.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The law of mummy element and daddy element. = LIFE

Citation, please?

It starts here, and moves on to here.

This idea that there has to be a specific 'law' for anything significant is fundamentally misconceived. A scientific law is an inference from the observation that certain phenomena always occur in certain situations or contexts. They describe specific behaviours with general applications; e.g. conservation of angular momentum applies in a similar way to hurricanes, whirlpools, and galaxies, and with similar results.